Floyd Patteson vs Jack Johnson

Max baer had more natural ability than jack johnson?

 

Jack Johnson would win this, by decision or late stoppage...in my opinion. Floyd would probably have his moments. :hat

 

Arguably. He had different natural abilities (mostly his all-time great power) and perhaps in more quantity than those possessed by Johnson. Also, he did not exploit his natural ability to the extent Johnson did. The argument can be made.

In regards to the match-up at hand, Johnson never faced anyone with hands as fast as Patterson. Patterson hit very hard and with blinding quickness. If Ketchell KD'd Johnson, Patterson puts him through the ring.

 

Seamus.

None of the guys you listed had more natural ability than Jack Johnson. No one was less predictable than Johnson pre WWII. Johnson UNLEASHED THE UNEXPECTED.

He did things no one had seen before.

Jim Jeffries was a great fighter but never processed to ability of Jack Johnson no matter how strong he was.

Johnson outmuscled Jeffries (yes Jeff was past it, but he was still strong). Johnson carried alot of guys, between 1901 and 1926, his only losses in 87 fights were to Jeannette (who he twice beat), a points loss to Marvin Hart (almost certainly a fixed fight) and a 26th round stoppage loss to 6'6" 237 pound, 84 inch reach, Jess Wilard, in the Havana heat at 37.

I said Johnson had more ability than any pre-WWII Heavyweight.

DON'T TALK ABOUT STRENGTH. Look at Mayweather, he probably has more natural ability than everyone he has fought, but he was not the strongest, and gave up chunks of natural weight.

In term of skills, people like Baer ain't **** compared to Johnson, plus i can't see Tunney beating a prime motivated Jerffries Johnson.

Langford was great, but natural ability as a Heavyweight? Yes he was a mega puncher, but he was not as elusive or as canny as Johnson.

 

Maybe you would be better served to define "natural ability". I take it as innate athletic abilities, i.e. the speed of Tunney, strength of Jeffries, power of Langford. These were bred in the bone qualities that were sharpened not created by training. And in what context does Johnson's "unpredictability" play a factor. THe most unpredictable facet of his career is how he could look great in one fight and mediocre in the next.

The above is a bit rambling but sure I agree he did things no one had seen before. He was an innovator who carried the torch passed by Corbett and added much of his own. I have been over too many times the subpar performances of Johnson from Choynski, to Hart (please provide you proof of a fix. I have never heard such a thing), to the Jack O'Brien affair, the canvas-kissing at the hands of Ketchell (what champ today would be allowed such an indignity?), to the draw with Jim Johnson, to the very fact he avoided the best potential opponents during his reign and hung his hat on a victory of a thoroughly depleted ex-champ, to the his undoing against an otherwise fairly unheralded opponent.

Again, make up your mind. Are you referring to innate athletic qualities (natural ability) or a skillset acquired through years in the ring. Max Baer had awesome physical tools, perhaps as good as any heavy ever, pulverizing power, excellent reach, stamina and a first rate chin. But he was **** in training. Of course, the finished product was not of the quality of Johnson but if you are in fact speaking of natural ability, he rates exceptionally high. He fought on practically nothing but natural ability and was world champ.

I have given Johnson his just due in regards to being an innovator with great skills for his era and excellent athletic qualities. However, his inconsistencies prevent me from buying the forced fed, sacrosanct dogma of his indominatable greatness. Too many excuses, too many broken seams in the arguments and too damn much benefit of the doubt. Call me a sceptic.

 

Those who want to throw out Liston-Patterson 1 as a benchmark miss what took place during that short round. Floyd boxed as many thought he could, and it looked at first like he would have the style and goods to make a go of it until Liston caught him and followed up on it. Floyd almost came off the floor from Sonnys left hook. Jack wouldn't have minded Floyds style at all although Pattersons hand speed likely would have allowed some sharp punches to land. I see Jack, if he wanted too, able to land some very damaging uppercuts on Floyd. I can't see Floyd lasting the distance.

 

Then how did so many fighters who couldn't sniff Patterson's jock last the distance with Johnson. And per the Liston comparison, not even close. Were Liston around 1905-1915, they would have been carrying his opponents out in body bags.

 

Seamus.

"sacrosanct dogma of his indominatable greatness."

Who said anything about "indominatable greatness"?

I said Jack Johnson had more natural ability than any pre-WWII Heavyweight. You keep mentioning Max Baer, when he was not known as a great boxer but as a great puncher.

Max Baer was a physical specien at his peak, yes, but he did NOT have the natural ability of Jack Johnson, in terms of judging distances and speed.

All those 1930's fighters were very good (apart from Joe Louis who was truly great), but none of them were as crafty as Jack Johnson or had the ring generalship of Johnson.

Seamus you can bring up Johnson's losses all you want, you know Johnson was more skillful than baer. You know Johnson has a better CV than Baer. You know Johnson was a greater fighter than Baer.

Remember Jack Johnson as an old man predicted Joe Louis's downfall before it happened, claiming that Joe keep his left hand low after he jabbed and a right hand could be countered right on his chin.

How did Max Schmeling beat Joe Louis? Right hands countered after Louis jabbed. Louis later remidied these flaws.

Baer was no defence whizz. Jack Johnson is known as one of the greatest defensive fighters in history at Heavyweight. Johnson used to pick off incoming punches from the air while landing his own blows in the same movement.

He could fight in close or fight at range. Yes Baer hit harder, but so what? There's a lot of hard punchers that hit harder than Johnson or had better chins pre-WWII, but none of them brought the innovated skills that Johnson and later Jack Dempsey brought to the table.

No one from Baers time rated his skills on par or above Jack Johnson's. Jack Dempsey was a more skilled fighter than BAER. And both their title reigns are better than Baers and the fighters they beat were better than Baers.

 

Congradulations on missing the point of my post entirely.

 

For Seamus to claim that MAX BAER had the natural ability as Jack johnson is crazy.

Most posters always talk about how crude Baer looked on film. Great power yes, cast-iron chin yes. But i am taking about skills and ring generalship and defensive ability.

Are you going to claim that BAER had these things on par or better than Johnson?

What is it with you anyway? Why are you rating BAER on par or over Johnson in any shape or form whatsoever?

Johnson is an ATG, way above Baer. Johnson is better than Baer. Why is Baer even in this debate?

Johnson had more natural ability and if you can't see that on film then you should leave boxing alone.

What boxing skills does Baer have? Without you mentioning chin and power?

 

Having more boxing skill than someone else doesn't mean you are more gifted.

I think everyone can agree that Baer was gifted with the kind of punching power and ability to take punches that Johnson did not have. Thus he was more gifted in certain areas.

The problem for Baer was that he did not develop his boxing skills any further, he just went with what he had and still managed to accomplish quite a lot.

Now I would not say that Max Baer was more gifted because he did indeed lack the speed and reflexes of Jack Johnson but as far as physical strength, raw power and ability to take punishment goes he may have ranked higher than Johnson.

Skill-wise they are on two entirely different levels. Johnson was possibly the most skilled boxer of his time while Baer may have been the least.

 

How come you can understand my point but others can not?

Does not the term "natural ability" infer ability that occurs previous of skills acquired? How can one make this more explicit and less obscufated?

 

When you talk in terms of boxing I take "natural ability " to mean boxing skills ,as would most on here imo.
Comparing Baer to Johnson in that area is farcical ,Baer was a crude slugger Johnson was the finest defensive fighter of his time .Baer was given boxing lessons by Loughran and Braddock ,no one gave Johnson boxing lessons.
If you had said natural physical gifts as in physique ,power, resistance to punches, I think people would have not disagreed with you.As it is the fault lies with you for not clearly expressing yourself, I beleive.

Saying that because Ketchel knocked Johnson down Patterson would do so is silly .its as ridiculous as saying because Frazier knocked Ali down he must knock Foreman down because Ali beat Foreman.If you beleive one has any relevance to the other you should take up another interest.